Sorry, meant to send this to the public list. Comments below.
-----Original message-----
From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 17:32:33 GMT+00:00
Subject: RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent
Shane, no one is trying to solve all consumer consent issues with this
standard. Under any legal regime, different types of processing require
different types of consent---opt-in, opt-out, no consent at all, etc. What
this standard says will and should have no bearing on when Amazon can give
my mailing address info to FedEx, or when my doctor can sell my records for
research purposes, or when Facebook can deliver first-party ads based on my
user profile. All we are trying to decide is WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF A
STATED DNT INSTRUCTION, how a consumer should signal that a party may act
contrary to that DNT instruction.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that it would be an appropriate result
for the New York Times to be able to say in para 178 on a EULA that the user
is granting permission for all of the NYT's third-party partners to ignore
DNT. I fail to see how requiring a clear and prominent permission should be
remotely controversial.
If I have told you quite clearly not to eat my cake, you should make clear
that you would like to eat my cake despite my instruction. Otherwise, users
won't be able to trust that the standard works.
Sent via mobile, please excuse curtness and typos
-----Original message-----
From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org"
<public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Jeffrey Chester
<jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmaye